The Court directed respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from her legally possessed agricultural land without following due process of law, citing constitutional rights and settled precedents.
The respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land except by due process of law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITON NO.15480 of 2021
ORDER:
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking the following relief:-
“….to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the 4th Respondent in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner in respect of agricultural land for an Ac.5-04 cents situated in Survey No.190/1 of Kondagangudipudi Village, Vepadu Mandal, Vizianagaram District without following the due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 4th Respondent not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner without following the due process of law and pass such other order or orders…”
It is the case of petitioner that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe and born and brought up in Scheduled area of Vizianagaram District. Her mother by name Ubbeti Dalamma was assigned an extent of Ac.5-04 cents of agricultural dry land situated in Sy.No.190/1 of Kondagangudipudi Village, Vepadu Mandal, Vizianagaram District. She obtained Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed.
After death of her mother, the petitioner being sole legal heir, inherited the subject land and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment. The name of the petitioner was mutated in all revenue records and Pattadar Pass Book, substituted the name of the petitioner.
The 4th respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land without issuing notice during the subsistence of assignment. The petitioner appeared before the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent warned her to vacate the subject land.
2
The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent and gave a representation requesting to take action against the 4th respondent, who is trying to dispossess her from the subject land. The 4th respondent along with his officials came and warned the petitioner to vacate the land, again.
The petitioner has been in legal possession and enjoyment to the knowledge of one and all, the 4th respondent without following due process of law, trying to dispossess the petitioner, during the subsistence of the assignment, which is contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
Though the petitioner made several allegations in the writ affidavit filed along with the writ petition, the truth or otherwise in those allegations need not be adjudicated by this Court, in view of submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that the respondent authorities will follow due process of law in case the respondents intend to take possession. The material on record prima facie establishes that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed land.
It is settled law that a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed forcibly as held in Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & Anr1 , Ram Rattan v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 and Munshi Ram v. Delhi Administration3 , the Supreme Court held as follows:-
“…to forcibly dispossess citizens of their private property, without following the due process of law, would be to violate a human right, as also the
1 AIR 2004 SC 4609
2 1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299
3 1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408
3
constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution.”
Hence, recording submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, as there is no proposal to take possession of the subject land, and in view of the judgments of Apex Court referred above, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of law.
With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission, with the consent of both the counsel. However, this order will not preclude the respondents to take appropriate steps, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 03-08-2021 VSL
4
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITON NO.15480 of 2021
Date: 03-08-2021
VSL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents can dispossess the petitioner from the assigned land without following due process of law.
Whether the respondents' threat to dispossess the petitioner violates her rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Whether the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner except by due process of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rame Gowda (D) By Lrs vs M. Varadappa Naidu (D) By Lrs. & AnrReferred¶15
1 AIR 2004 SC 4609 · Who else cites this
Ram Rattan v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶14
1975 AIR 1674 = 1975 SCR 299 · Who else cites this
Munshi Ram v. Delhi AdministrationReferred¶14
1968 AIR 702 = 1968 SCR (2) 408 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
4th Respondent
2nd Respondent
Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
M. Satyanarayana Murthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
